Time to pony up....

I do think the wide margin of victory vindicates your view of the mainstream media.

Well, is it time for me to repeat this?

SamCogar wrote:If Pa Democrats give Hillary all their Electorial votes ........ then she will stay in the race ........... and her and Obama will continue badmouthing each other with ever increasing fevor and more and better "dirt" will surface and with added spit the mud will be flinging.

And Hillary will be digging for some really great "dirt" that would give cause for a brokered Convention where she could win the Nomination.

Me thinks Hillary isa hopeing Obama will have a "Gary Hart Moment".

And Obama did .......... when he made that silly statement about gun owners.

Now I dun tolt ya, ....... those Pa gun owners "can control the outcome of an Election".

They are a collective force mighter than ........ the Public Employees in WV.

.

"If Pa Democrats give Hillary all their Electorial votes ........ then she will stay in the race ........... "

Well Sam I think based on that statement you might be a little confused.

The electoral vote will not be cast until after the General Election.

We are still in the Primary season.

And if you are referring to the Convention Delegates, Hillary cannot get them all due to Party Rules which require the Delegates be divvied up more or less proportionally,

So Hillary will get roughly 60%. More or less.

That is part of the problem for her.

Dems do not have winner take all Primaries any more.

The Republicans still do in some states, but not the Dems.

If they did, Hillary would probably already have enough Delegates to win on the first round.

Sherm, if anything, the media is inflating Hillary's chances of capturing the nomination. The bottom line is that she has no chance of winning unless she manages to convince enough superdelegates to overturn the primary results and screw over the party's first legitimate black candidate. But you rarely hear this fact mentioned by the media, because they are loving the epic drama. It is in the media's interest to keep this fight going.

Well Randall you are buying into the Obama/elitist media spin.

Hillary has done better in the Primaries.

Obama has done well in the caucus states, which are subject to intimidation. Subtle or otherwise.

And Obama has done better where non-Democrats are allowed to participate in selecting the Dem. candidate.

But the bottom line is your statement is false on its face when you say they would "overturn" the Primary results.

The results up to this point have not produced a winner.

There will be no winner until one candidate receives over half the Delegates.

It will be virtually impossible for either candidate to do so prior to the convention.

Obama is slightly ahead in so-called pledged delegates right now that is true.

But it is a volatile election season, and Delegates can change their minds.

Like LBJ used to say, your opponent can always get caught in a motel with a dead girl or a live boy.

Anything can happen and I wont be surprised if things change more than once.

But it is impossible to overturn a decision that has not yet been made.

shermangeneral wrote:"If Pa Democrats give Hillary all their Electorial votes ........ then she will stay in the race ........... "

Well Sam I think based on that statement you might be a little confused.

The electoral vote will not be cast until after the General Election.

Right again Sherm, that should have been "Delegate" votes.

Sherm,

I noticed how in your previous post you mentioned that Hillary beats Obama in states with closed primaries. It seems to me that the Dems would want to put up the candidate who can draw from independents and others. Or haven't you liberals figured out yet you are not in the majority?

Stephanie wrote:Sherm,

I noticed how in your previous post you mentioned that Hillary beats Obama in states with closed primaries. It seems to me that the Dems would want to put up the candidate who can draw from independents and others. Or haven't you liberals figured out yet you are not in the majority?

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

They don't need no stinkin' independents and others - people watching Fox News don't know any better any way.

Stephanie wrote:Sherm,

I noticed how in your previous post you mentioned that Hillary beats Obama in states with closed primaries. It seems to me that the Dems would want to put up the candidate who can draw from independents and others. Or haven't you liberals figured out yet you are not in the majority?

Well Steph I believe if we are going to have a Candidate representing the Democrat Party then they should be chosen by members of the Democrat Party.

If you open it up then you allow people to help choose your candidate who do not want you to win.

Look at the current situation.

McCain is already the republican winner.

So republicans are free to switch over and try to disrupt the process in the Democrat Party in the states that allow for it.

As I understand, some of the republican movers and shakers are encouraging fellow republicans to do just that.

shermangeneral wrote:

Stephanie wrote:Sherm,

I noticed how in your previous post you mentioned that Hillary beats Obama in states with closed primaries. It seems to me that the Dems would want to put up the candidate who can draw from independents and others. Or haven't you liberals figured out yet you are not in the majority?

Well Steph I believe if we are going to have a Candidate representing the Democrat Party then they should be chosen by members of the Democrat Party.

If you open it up then you allow people to help choose your candidate who do not want you to win.

Look at the current situation.

McCain is already the republican winner.

So republicans are free to switch over and try to disrupt the process in the Democrat Party in the states that allow for it.

As I understand, some of the republican movers and shakers are encouraging fellow republicans to do just that.

So whose fault is all that, Sherm?

There are almost no federal voting and election laws- other than that Congress sets the date of federal level general elections. Each state makes its own laws about who can vote in what primaries, etc.

In West Virginia all three political parties allow independents to vote in their primary elections. But none of them allow members of other parties who have candidates on the ballot to vote in their primary.

But other states do it differently. Fifty states, with 50 sets of election laws on how people run for president. ............... hell of a way to run a railroad.

That is true, Zig.

Which reminds me of something we touched on before but did not resolve.

Can not states (Fla and Michigan come to mind) determine who goes on their state ballot as the Democrat candidate for President?

Even if the national Democrat Committee has another candidate?

I doubt if anyone on here really knows the answer, I just think it is an interesting topic/question.

shermangeneral wrote:

Stephanie wrote:Sherm,

I noticed how in your previous post you mentioned that Hillary beats Obama in states with closed primaries. It seems to me that the Dems would want to put up the candidate who can draw from independents and others. Or haven't you liberals figured out yet you are not in the majority?

Well Steph I believe if we are going to have a Candidate representing the Democrat Party then they should be chosen by members of the Democrat Party.

If you open it up then you allow people to help choose your candidate who do not want you to win.

Look at the current situation.

McCain is already the republican winner.

So republicans are free to switch over and try to disrupt the process in the Democrat Party in the states that allow for it.

As I understand, some of the republican movers and shakers are encouraging fellow republicans to do just that.

As a Republican, as an American, I want a President working for all Americans. I don't want a leader who is only willing to work for, or with, those who donated to the winner's campaign, or fits the demographic of the groups that candidate did well with. Don't you share that desire? Don't most Democrats?

I know Rush Limbaugh has been encouraging people to do this. He's a pinhead. There may be others. Most of the Republicans I have been working with are voting in the GOP primaries and caucuses. Most of them, like me, are voting Ron Paul.

As Ziggy accurately points out, people who are unaffiliated can vote in any of WV's primaries. I know it works that way in many states. I also know that in most states (if not all) if an individual is registered Republican and wishes to vote in the Democratic primary, or vice versa, they must disaffiliate in advance of the primary.

Well Steph let me axe you a question ok.

If Independents dont want to be affiliated with any Party, then why don't they nominate their own Independent Candidate?

Why vote in a Democrat Primary if you don't believe in the principles of that Party?

They're independents......they are diverse. They don't want to be affiliated to a particular party. Just because they don't necessarily identify with the GOP or the Dems doesn't mean they agree with each other.

Perhaps they don't believe in the "principles of the party" but they believe in the candidate. That's why I vote for candidates. I vote for them because of their positions on issues, because of their record, because of who they are and what they believe in, not because of what party they are affiliated with.

Sherm, if you don't want independents voting in the democratic primary, you're going to have to tell your head honcho's. I'm a registered independent (I'm not a socialist, democrats are increasingly going that route, thus my change) who gets at least one card begging me to vote in your primary from your party each and every day.

They did not check with me b4 making that change Aaron.

I suspect they r having second thots.

Then why do they keep nominating more and more liberal candidates for President? If I'm not mistaken, the liberal grade keeps increasing, from Gore, to Kerry and now Obama. At this pace, Chavez will be the nominee no later then 2016.

shermangeneral wrote:Well Steph I believe if we are going to have a Candidate representing the Democrat Party then they should be chosen by members of the Democrat Party.

If you open it up then you allow people to help choose your candidate who do not want you to win.

Well Sherman, I see your point ........ and isn't that why the Democrat Party decided to "empower" all those Super Delegates?

YUP it tis, the Democrat Party didn't want all those registered Democrat voters to be choosing which candidate would be "winning" in the Primaries.

So, the way it is now, if the Democrat voters DON'T PICK the candidate that the Party wants, ......... then the Party has enough Super Delegate votes to OVERRIDE the votes of the Democrat voters.

.

Well Sam it looks to me like if they pick the one most Democrats voted for it will be Hillary.

Even though Obama will have more so-called pledged delegates due to the caucus states.

So the ex-officio Delegates will make the choice based on whatever criteria they choose.

So whichever one they choose it will be the so-called super delegates who pick the winner because without Fl and Michigan neither can possibly garner enough pledged delegates to win.

(and I remind you the republicans had the same dilemma in Fl and Michigan. Just that their election is over so it dont matter.)

I'm going to vote for John Edwards.



.

I expect Edwards will get quite a few votes. I thot about doing that myself but will prob vote for Hillary.

shermangeneral wrote:Why vote in a Democrat Primary if you don't believe in the principles of that Party?

What principles? It is the lack of Republican Party and Democratic Party principles that makes the Mountain Party and "independents' the fastest growing voter registration classifications in West Virginia.

Well thanks zig for helping to make my point.

Those who dont believe in Democrat principles or Republican principles should start their own party with their own principles or find an independent who shares their principles.

BTW does the MT party have any principles?

If so, what are they?

shermangeneral wrote:BTW does the MT party have any principles?

If so, what are they?

The pillars of the Mountain Party include:

Grassroots Democracy: Every human being deserves a say in the decisions that affect their lives and not be subject to the will of another. Therefore, we will work to increase public participation at every level of government and to ensure that our public representatives are fully accountable to the people who elect them. We will also work to create new types of political organizations which expand the process of participatory democracy by directly including citizens in the decision-making process.

Social Justice and Equal Opportunity: All persons should have the rights and opportunity to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment. We must consciously confront in ourselves, our organizations, and society at large, barriers such as racism and class oppression, sexism and homophobia, ageism and disability, which act to deny fair treatment and equal justice under the law.

Ecological Wisdom: Human societies must operate with the understanding that we are part of nature, not separate from nature. We must maintain an ecological balance and live within the ecological and resource limits of our communities and our planet. We support a sustainable society which utilizes resources in such a way that future generations will benefit and not suffer from the practices of our generation. To this end we must practice agriculture which replenishes the soil; move to an energy efficient economy; and live in ways that respect the integrity of natural systems.

Non-violence: It is essential that we develop effective alternatives to society's current patterns of violence. We will work to demilitarize, and eliminate weapons of mass destruction, without being naive about the intentions of other governments. We recognize the need for self-defense and the defense of others who are in helpless situations. We promote non-violent methods to oppose practices and policies with which we disagree, and will guide our actions toward lasting personal, community and global peace.

http://www.mtparty.org/platform/platform.html